1952 Primary v. 2008 Primary

The 2008 election is the first election since 1952 that neither the sitting President nor sitting Vice President is in the general election for the Presidency.
Looking back to the 1952 election, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower against Democrat Adlai Stevenson, it was a landslide victory with the Republican Party carrying 39 states and 442 of the electoral votes. This might lead to the question of how 1952 relates back to today’s election that seems like it will be a close one.
The answer is in the Republican nomination compared to the nomination process of the Democrat’s this primary season. Just like 2008, with the primaries being a battle the whole way for the Democrats, with the possibility of it carrying all of the way to the convention, the Republicans in 1952 battled it out all of the way to the convention in Chicago.
The true battle was between Robert A. Taft and Eisenhower. This was Taft’s 3rd election run and he knew full well that this was his last shot and so his supporters knew also that they would have to fight tooth and nail for their last chance at the presidency. Of course, with any such battle in politics there were accusations of cheating across the board. Eisenhower’s camp was accusing Taft of stealing votes from Texas and Georgia by refusing to send delegates who supported Eisenhower to the convention and sending Taft supporters in their place. After this, the Eisenhower camp proposed and got passed the “Fair-play” mandate that stated the pro Taft delegates from Texas and Georgia must be thrown out of the convention and replaced with pro Eisenhower delegates. This took so many delegates away from Taft that he no longer stood a chance.
To give and example of just how bad the blow was Taft’s Presidential dreams here are the numbers of delegates from before and the Fair-play proposition and after. Before Fair-play, the vote was Eisenhower 595 to Taft’s 500. After the proposition, the vote became Eisenhower, 845 delegates, Taft, 280.
Hopefully the Democratic primary will not end with the same kind of controversy, as did the Republican convention of 1952. For right now, we will just have to wait and see. However, it seems very likely that this drawn out battle will have an impact on the Democrat’s battle against McCain in the general election, unlike the election of 1952, where the Republicans swept the election anyway.

Last Blog post: McCain vs Obama

My prediction for the remainder of the 2008 presidential campaign is that the race will be between John McCain (R) and Barack Obama (D). McCain has already received the required number of pledge delegates (The candidate must receive 1,119 out of the 2,380 delegates), so he has been able to begin campaigning for the presidency. The neck- and-neck Democratic competition between Clinton and Obama has reached a point in which Obama’s pledge delegates have an adequate lead over Clinton’s. The Democratic nominee needs 2,025 pledged delegates. In 1984, about 850 super-delegates (considered a “safety valve”) were added. These are leaders in the National Democratic Party and who have a vote at the National Convention. Most people agree that the super-delegates should honor the candidate that their district voted for.

Although Clinton is holding on at this point, analysis of the numbers indicate that she will not get the nomination. There are opinions on both sides of this issue, whether she should withdraw or continue through the remaining six primaries. My personal opinion is that her continued attacks on Obama will hurt him as the nominee in the general election. Some Clinton supporters, such as Lanny Davi, believe she is justified to remain in the race, since it so close and she has a large base of support. Other critics question her motives on why she would risk a Democratic win for personal gain. At this point, most Democrats see the need for the party to come together strongly and create a united campaign against McCain and the Republicans. They need to focus the campaign on the Democratic Party benefits over the Republican platform, instead of highlighting the division in the Democratic Party.

If the race comes down to Obama vs. McCain, I predict it will be close. McCain will have the support of the conservatives and most of the moderates. Obama’s reputation, that of being more liberal than Clinton, will gain him the support of the left, possibly some swing voters and the youth and minority vote. Some of Clinton supporters may switch their alliance to Obama but other more moderate Democrats may likely vote for McCain. John Edward’s supporters would go to Obama, although this is not a large block at this point. The greatest hope for an Obama win would be a large turnout among young voters and minority voters. Unfortunately, with the religious controversy surrounding Obama he will certainly lose the religious vote, which may have been unavoidable anyway.

Studying campaigns and elections from the past and present has given me great insight into campaign tactics and how candidates match the needs of the times. This class has also highlighted how the general public makes voting decisions. It is surprising to learn how little information the general public has on important political issues and positions of the candidates. An example of this was just recently shown on the Jon Stewart show (May 14, 2008), in which voters from West Virginia were interviewed. In the three examples, one woman commented that she could not vote for Obama because she had concerns about dealing with “the other race.” A second woman said she could not vote for a Muslim. The third was tired of “Husseins” and would not vote for “a Hussein.” Obviously, none of these things make sense, but some voters make opinions based on very little information, and then they bring these misconceptions to the polls. As a political science major, I think this course is critical to understand how campaigns and elections work (and often don’t work) in the United States.
David Kennedy
http://www.gopconventionreport.com/
www.uspolitics.about.com/od/2008elections

Elections with Recessions

With every election in history there are major issues to be discussed. Those issues involving war, foreign trade, and economy could be best known as the perfect equation to a recession. With every recession comes a heighten sense of need for change. The efforts of candidates since the first recession of 1797 all the way to the 2008 recession has brought great ideas to the table to bring the economy to stabilize. With 2008 elections going on right now we have a recession involving a barrel of oil being $110, the down turn of the stock market, household mortgages, and a war that has been going on longer than expected. The American people have seen this not just once but multitude of times. The 2008 recession has been discussed of being the top 3 recessions in the United States history. The other recession that has been closely related to the 2008 recession would be the early 1980’s. Where the recession had brought about oil prices that had sky rocketed, inflation caused by post war, unemployment reaching a little over 5%, and the banking crisis that had brought major issues to the table for elections of 1980. Now compared to then there really is not too many issues that are different expect for the time period that the issues were involved around. During the election of Ronald Regan and Jimmy Carter one was the biggest issues Reagan had brought into effect was to address emphasized economic recovery and putting all Americans back to work. He called for fewer government regulations and lower taxes. Now in the 2008 election John McCain has gone about talking about make this economy do a 360 by late 2009 by bring the recession to an end with tax cuts, improvement in unemployment and closing the gap to the end of the war. The recession right now in the United States is difficult to live through but will be changed in the near future with new ideas and polices on the table by whomever becomes the 44th president of the United State of America.

1968 and 2008

1968 and the current election of 2008 have many similarities which lead me to believe it is the most similar election. “Nixon, Humphrey and the Vietnam War”, as titled in our Presidential Campaigns text parallels the ongoing election. The Vietnam War in 1968 was “bitterly dividing the country”, war hawks ‘’supported Johnson’s administration efforts to prevent a North Vietnam takeover of South Vietnam” (Boller 320). The doves protested the war and staged sit-ins and demonstrations. Currently, the Iraq war is playing a significant issue in this election. The democratic nominees, Clinton and Obama are calling for an end to the war and to pull out troops. McCain, on the other hand is against pulling the troops out until the ‘job is done’.

Another similarity between ’68 and ’08 is Nixon and McCain. Nixon made a comeback after being defeated in 1960 by John F. Kennedy and once again in 1964 by Barry Goldwater. In order to gain attention, Nixon tried hard to regain political attention by making speeches, and reaching out to other Republican party officials for friendships (321). McCain ran for nomination in 2000 against Bush and subsequently lost. However since then he has gained momentum, like Nixon, and has shed his “loser’s image” (321).

Another issue that is similar is the ‘tough on crime’ approach that the Conservatives take. Giuliani made many get tough on crime stances during his short-lived campaign and McCain himself takes a tough on terror/crime stance as well. Nixon made use of the law and order issue, he promised to make streets safer and “restore order and respect for law in this country” (324).

In conclusion, the Vietnam and Iraq wars separated the country between doves and hawks and are important backgrounds to the elections.

-Diana Davino

Let No-One Complain of Good Competition

Although this years election so far has been tough, hard fought and down to the nail for the Democrats, let no one utter a word of complaint, but release a breath of relief that Barry Goldwater is not in the election. The election of 1964, Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater, should remind all Americans that a close race between quality candidates is better than a race that includes an extremist who makes a candidacy ending statement each time he opens his mouth. Yes, Hillary had a glitch with the bullets whizzing over head because she was tired, and Obama offended Pennsylvanians in reference to religion and guns, but nothing compares to Barry Goldwater. No other election has seen the use of 'quotemanship' like '64. Goldwater, famous for shooting from the lip, visited areas suffering from depression and attacked legislation which would benefit low employment, he visited St. Petersburg, known for it's aging population, and attacked social security,upon visiting farming towns he attacked farming support, and on Foreign Policy, said he wanted to remove the United States from the United Nations, use "low yield" nuclear weapons against the communists and "lob" one into the Mens room of the Russian Governmental Building. It was no surprise that Johnson took the election in an absolute landslide. So as these Democratic elections draw on, remember that it is only the quality of the candidates that allow it to do so and hopefully it is this close competition that will result in the strongest and most worthy President, not simply one who had less than adequate opposition.

1972 and 2008

The 1972 election was waged on the issue of the Vietnam War, and radicalism. The 2008 election is based on the Iraq War, economy, and social issues. There are many correlations to these two elections even though there is a thirty six year difference between the two. To start out, both elections had many candidates who all had an equal shot in the beginning but dropped out due to failure. Although some of the candidates in 08’ didn’t drop out for reasons such as vehicular manslaughter or for the sake of being shot such as some of the 72’ electorates, they all did burn out in the end. A major correlation in this election is the Iraq War to the Vietnam War. The democratic candidate McGovern was a radicalist who wanted to bring the troops home and was very anti-war. Now although Barrack or Hillary cannot put themselves that far at the end of the spectrum to try to bring in as many moderates, they are still against the war and campaign that they want to bring the troops home and end the Iraq war. McCain was obviously not president in the past election as Nixon was yet, Nixon took on a very easy campaign somewhat as McCain seems to be doing. Since the mudslinging and scandals have been many public on the news with the two democratic candidates, even though the Republican party has looked horrific under Bush, the democrats never cease to show failure and prove that they can always make the other candidate look better. Clinton was found lieing about her trip to Bosnia ad being in a “war zone,” and Barrack’s mentor has found to be anti-American and racist; thus making Senator McCain look very good right now. Although I don’t predict a blowout with McCain winning as Nixon did, I do see McCain splitting Hilary’s votes with Barrack gaining less support because of his race and Muslim roots just as Nixon split the democrats and “McGovernities” votes in 72’.

Justin O'Connor

'92 vs. '08

The elections of 1992 and 2008 have a lot in common with each other when it comes to several different subjects. The first of which is like in 1992, this election year is one in which the Republicans have been in office for a good while and just like in the election of ’92, the economy is once again in the crapper. As we all know when the economy bombs, so does Presidential approval ratings, even though the President doesn’t have much to do with the situation anyway. In 1992 President George H.W. Bush couldn’t say Operation Desert Storm enough to drown out the troubled economy and it seems as if the economy could lead to the Republican Party’s loss again this year.
Americans rank the economy as a more important issue than the “war” in Iraq by a significant margin (30% as stated in one of my previous posts). This is what caused a shift in support in 1992 from Republican to Democrats and may be the cause of the same type of shift in support today. It may be that with problems here at home people forget more about the war as a social issue and focus more on the failing markets here at home. With less focus on the war people feel less threatened, and the more threatened people feel the more conservative people will vote. Being distracted from those “threats” by the economy’s shortcomings could cause people to vote less conservative.
With this in mind it seems as if this year’s main issue during the general election will be the economy. As Bill Clinton said in 1992 “it’s the economy stupid...” could be used as a campaign slogan this year in 2008. It seems as if this year Americans are more concerned with the burst of the housing market bubble and the downfall of our financial markets than they are with the war dragging on in Iraq. Also, the signs of the economy are directly affecting more Americans than the social issues are affecting them. People continue to see the gas prices rise and the markets struggle and the candidates talk about the issue more and more. Like 1992, in 2008, if the war is out of sight, it’s out of mind.
Some other similarities between the elections include the large number of Democratic candidates that ran for the nomination. However, the process for this year’s nomination was much more drawn out than it was in 1992. It will be interesting to see how the general election will play out especially with the economy being such a big issue this year. Also, it will be interesting to see how the war will come into play later on as well.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/02/issue.poll/index.html

1976 and 2008

In an earlier post, I wrote about the tit-for-tat primary season for the Republican party in the 1976 presidential race and how it is similar to the Democratic nomination process this time around. Also, in another post, I wrote about the effect religion had in the 1976 race and the 2008 race. To refresh everyone's memories, the tit-for-tat primary race in 1976 meant that Reagan and Ford would both win primaries, and that neither could gain momentum in the nomination process. When Ford would get a big win, Reagan would come right back and get a big win of his own. This is somewhat similar to the 2008 race, with neither candidate, Obama or Clinton, able to get a long standing momentum lasting more than a month or so. While Obama got some momentum by winning 12 straight contests in a row after Super-Tuesday, he could not carry that momentum into Texas and Ohio, as Clinton won big there. As for the religion aspect, I earlier wrote that the whole hoop-la surrounding Jeremiah Wright and how it negatively affected Obama is similar to the 1976 race in that Jimmy Carter had some issues with religion. For instance, he talked about faith in an article published in Playboy Magazine. Carter said that it was a sin to even think of coveting another woman other than his wife, and that by that logic, he has sinned. Another aspect of religion that played a role in 1976 was that it was found out that Carter's Baptist church in Georgia had denied entry of a black person into it. They said they had no problem allowing a black person in there, but that was because there were no black people that went to that church and they figured entry would not be an issue. But when a black person tried to enter, they locked the doors. Carter defended his church and said he would not stop going there. As a result, Carter's 33% advantage over Ford dwindled and had a real race on his hands when the general election came closer.

One other similarity I noticed between these two elections is the South. Carter was the last Democrat that was able to win Southern states as a result of being a governor from Georgia. Obama, in the primaries, has won the South convincingly, (excluding Florida), and some predict that Obama could bring some Southern states, like Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and maybe even South Carolina and Mississippi into play as a result of all those states heavy African American populations. If this is the case, then the media would be saying that this is the first time a Democrat has won Southern states like this since Carter in 1976.

While I think that this election is most similar to 1976, I feel that one cannot use the 1976 election as a catalyst for the outcome of this race. There are may different issues today that were not big issues 32 years ago. The outcome of the race this year will be determined on how well each party can get their voters out. Assuming that Obama wins the nomination, as it so likely seems now, and Obama versus McCain race will be an exciting one and possible a realigning race. The one thing that 1976 tells us about today's race, is that many things will be thrown at each candidate from the other side, yet both seemed in 1976 to whether it till the general election when the winner was not really known. All I know is that when I cast my ballot in November and am nervously watching election results come in on the networks to see how my guy is doing, I will expect to hear some of the better commentators mention 1976 a few times, whether it be for the fact that Obama may have won some Southern states that have not been won by a Democrat since 1976, or for the fact that a personal religious issue and a tit-for-tat primary season negatively affected one of the candidates.

Sticking by my guns with the Election of 1912

It's not over until the fat lady sings seems to be the motto for Hillary Clinton as she continues to stay in a race that is all but won by Barack Obama. Still with the hope that she can some how pull out a win Clinton continues to look more and more like William Taft.

In 1912, the first year with a large amount of political primaries, former president Teddy Roosevelt won a majority of the primaries and seemed like the for sure. However, when it came down to the convention the party decided on William Taft as the nominee. Teddy is so upset he leaves the party and creates the Bull Moose Party to run in the election. Splitting the party vote, Woodrow Wilson is able to skate through the national election to winning the president.

Seeing as the 2008 primary season is yet to conclude, it would be premature to say which historic national election best mirrors the 2008 election. With this in mind, the current situation best mirrors that of 1912, which I discribed above. Obama has won 29 of the primaries to date, compared to Clintons 18, and he has won 1,846 delegates to her 1,685. It is hard to say that Clinton has much of a case for the nomination, but still she hangs in the race. Her only real chance is if the superdelegates vote against the general electorate. The real question is, what if the superdelegates do the unthinkable and elect Hillary Clinton? It's hard to believe that Obama would branch off and form his own political party, but it could be enough for a large portion of the democratic to stay home on election day and thus give the election to John McCain. The Democratic party leaders can only hope that the damage has not been done already

Andrew Stoltzfus

Race and Religion 2

Race and Religion 2
I just made a post a few hours ago regarding the election of 1928. In many 1928 campaign mirrors that of the 1960 campaign. However, I believe the election of 1960 is most comparable to the election of 2008, which is why I saved it for this last post. For the purpose of this post I will assume Barack Obama will be the Democratic candidate, quite frankly, because it makes for a more relevant comparison.
(* = or Clinton)

-In this election one of the major issues was whether to vote for Irish Catholic John Kennedy or Protestant Richard Nixon.
-In the election of 2008 It would be black candidate Barack Obama* who also has relatives of Muslim descent versus….well we don’t really know what the hell McCain’s religious views are.

-Kennedy had to avoid isolating the Protestant voters. To do this he took a platform stressing the importance separation of ‘church’ and state.
On September 12, 1960, he went to speak to members of the Protestant Church in Texas. During the speech Kennedy said, “I am not the Catholic candidate for President, I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.” (Boller, Jr. 298)
Despite this, the campaign featured religious propaganda.
-Obama has had to stress, “that he has “been to the same church _ the same Christian church _ for almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply. "I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible. Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some silly e-mail ... send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this is all crazy. Educate." According to a Jan. 21st article on MSNBC.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22767392/ .
Despite his words, there is still propaganda circulating on the web pertaining to his race and religion.

Nixon made charges against Kennedy that included exploiting the fact that Kennedy was young and “inexperienced (300).” Kennedy was 46 when he died in office.
Clinton has made the same charges in regards to Barack Obama who turns 48 in August.

Kennedy charged that the country had been in decline under the rule of the Republicans. He emphasized America’s decline in the eyes of the world, America’s lack of production, and America’s failures in the arms race vs. Russia. (298)
Both Democratic candidates have made an issue out of the sinking economy under the Bush Administration, the failures overseas, and our inability to maintain a good foreign image.

John Kennedy was the first Irish Catholic president, if Obama happens to win he would be America’s first black President. Both men dealt with issue of culture and religion, and both were considered to be charismatic, energetic, and well spoken young men. Both ran against a Republic party that had controlled office with a two term incumbent (Eisenhower and Bush). Both ran against older candidates and were thought to be liberal and forward thinking. The lines of comparison are seemingly more generic on the Republican side, both were white, Christian of some sort, and older men.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-16-clinton-bush_x.htm
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22767392/
Presidential Campaigns and Elections. Boller Paul.

1980 and 2008...Mirror Elections?

The election of 1980 is the election that correlates most exactly with the current election coming up in 2008. There are many similar aspects to the elections that make them similar.
1980 serves as a fresh political stage for America. Both Kennedy and Nixon were not running again and the stage was set for new candidates to emerge. The Republicans put Ronald Reagan and the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter. Both parties went through a very long nomination process that is very similar to that of the current 2008 election, on the Democratic side. le. In 1980, 6 candidates were contenders for the Presidential nomination on the Democratic side; John Connally, Bob Dole, Howard Baker, John Anderson, George Bush and Ronald Reagan and 2 candidates were up on the Republican side; Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy. Most of the candidates dropped out as the primary season went along, leaving only 3; Reagan, Bush and Anderson. Anderson did not drop out of the race, but rather decided to put himself on an independent third party ticket (but did not win, because third party systems do not win in American.) Regan was very convinced he was going to win the nomination so he chose to claim momentum and not campaign, but got competition when Bush beat im in Ohio. The two candidates battles it out until New Hampshire, where he proved to have more delegates going into the Republican convention. In the end, Reagan received the nomination and asked Bush to be his running mate. On the Democratic side, they nominated Jimmy Carter for the Presidential candidate, but not after a long fight. Jimmy Carter received intense opposition from Ted Kennedy, who proved to be a feisty opponent to the end. Ted Kennedy put up a strong opposition in the primary fight, but Carterended up running away with the nomination for three reasons; Kennedy’s mudslide interview, Nashua and the Iranian hostage crisis and Revolution (rally around the flag effect). Kennedy did not endorse Carter’s nomination so there was obviously a bitter sentiment to the end.
This situation is very similar to the situation going on in the election right now, on the Democratic side. John McCain easily won the Republican nomination and has already started his Presidential campaing instead of continuing on the primary course. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are continuing to battle it out late into the eprimary season, just like all the candidates in the 1980 election. The long primary process that requires so much energy and funds that it takes away from the energy that neds to be devoted to the Presidential race. Carter ended up going slightly crazy at the end of the election, as cam be speculated about Hillary Clinton right now, who is sucking down whiskey shots without chasers on national television. The primary process ending at the convention is exactly what is going to happen this year, because there will be no clear winner after the primary process this year, but rather it will be up to the delegates and the super delegates to decide who gets the nomination. This primary process was one of the first to be so long in history that involved multiple candidates to the very end, as does this years election.
On a personal level, Barak Obama is a similar candidate to Ronald Reagan, or the Teflon President. Although Barak has been associated with many bad situations, like that of his pastor, he his reputation has not been tainted by that. Ronald Reagan has a nice habit of making ethnic jokes in public and was encouraged to stay away from the microphone.
The rhetoric in this election was to pick the lesser of two evils, which this election in 2008 might come down to. It could quite possible come down to voting for who you hate less. The economic situation in both elections is similar, with inflation and unemployment rates almost exact to those of today, because of price control back then and a growing debt today because of wartime expenses. There was no incumbent in the election, as there is not today, but there is a pubic sentiment from the previous presidency that could urge people to change politically. The election ended up being very close, as this election will most likely be in more than one way. The Democratic candidate nomination will most likely be very close, deicded by a small amount of delegates and then the final Presidential election will be close because of split sentiment in the country. These elections, 1980 and 2004 are by far the most similar in history.

The link between 1984 and 2008

There are several similarities between the presidential campaign of 1984, and the presidential campaign of 2008, specifically, the length of the democratic primary (resulting in interparty conflict), the fact that themes not issues dominated the contest, the age issue, and the economic deficit. The presidential campaign experienced an extremely long democratic primary, with a number of contenders entering the contest in the beginning. In 1984 there were a total of 8 candidates initially, vying for the Democratic nomination, Governor Reuben, Senator Alan Cranston, Senator John Glenn, Senator Gary Hart, Senator Earnest Hollings, and Civil Rights Activist Jesse Jackson, AFL president Lane Kirkland, Senator George McGovern, and Former Vice President Walter Mondale. The 2008 Democratic Primary began in the same way with 8 contenders vying for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Former senator John Edwards, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Chris Dodd, former Senator Mike Gravel, US representative Dennis Kucinich, and Governor Bill Richardson. In both of these presidential primaries the high number of Democrats vying for the nomination can be attributed to the fact that there was no clear Democratic candidate, allowing everyone in 1984, and 2008 to throw their hat in the ring. Due to the high number of democratic contenders vying for the nomination, conflicts between members of the Democratic Party can be found in 1984 and 2008.
In 1984 the democratic convention seemed to be split between Former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, Civil Rights Activist Jesse Jackson, and Senator Gary Hart. In 2008 the Democratic candidates who garnered the most attention until recently has been Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, and former Senator John Edwards. As the campaign progressed in 1984 the primaries and the media seemed to reduce the democratic contenders to two, Walter Mondale, and Senator Gary Hart. In 1984 Walter Mondale was initially seen as the favorite to win the nomination (because he had tremendous party support) but Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart proved to be serious contenders in that they both gained tremendous backing, and Mr. Hart in particular proved to be the most challenging contender, winning a number of democratic primaries and gathering a significant following with young voters. Similarities can be drawn in the 2008 democratic primary where Senator Hillary Clinton was favored to win the nomination initially but then, Senator Barack Obama (who is seen as representing the young faction of the democratic party** Like Hart) began battling Senator Clinton for the nomination. Like in 1984, I am sure the Democratic Convention of 2008 will prove to be a divisive one.
Another point of comparison can be found in the thematic nature of the presidential contest in 1984 and 2008. In 1984 the campaigned was focused on “church, home, country and morality”, in 2008 the same issues seem to apply. The democratic and republican candidates in 2008 seem to be either dodging the religion question (Senator Obama and Senator McCain) or focusing on the importance of family, country and moral issues (aside from gay rights and abortion, no one wants to touch those).
Another correlation between the 1984 and 2008 presidential campaign is the age issue. In 1984 the fact that Ronald Regan was 73 became a point of criticism for both Democrats and Republicans. When rumors spread that Regan would routinely fall asleep at cabinet meetings, or would blank out when asked foreign policy questions, his age became a critical issue. In 2008 John McCain’s age has become somewhat of an issue. At the age of 71 McCain is one of the oldest people to run for the Presidency. Similar to 1984 McCain has tried to downplay the age issue by joking about it “"I'm older than dirt, more scars than Frankenstein, but I learned a few things along the way,"(MSNBC), only time will tell if McCain’s age will really be an issue.
Perhaps the most telling comparison between the 1984 and 2008 presidential campaign is the fact that in both campaigns the country was/and is in an economic deficit. In 1984 Mondale’s plan was to raise taxes, while Regan believed it was better to cut spending on social programs. In 2008 McCain seems to have a similar belief to Regan that raises taxes isn’t the answer, but seems to be more partial to tax cuts. Senator Obama on the other hand believes in “shifting the tax burden more toward the wealthy and making investments — in health care, alternative-energy research and education — that would cost a significant amount of money but could ultimately lift economic growth” (New York Times). Similar but somewhat different from Mr. Obama Senator Clinton plans on “Mrs. Clinton’s approach to the economy has three main components. She would roll back the Bush tax cuts for households with incomes over $250,000 while creating more tax breaks below that threshold; impose closer scrutiny on financial markets, including the investments being made by foreign governments in the United States; and raise spending on job-creating projects like the development of alternative energy” (New York Times).
Overall, several comparisons can be made between the presidential campaign of 1984 and 2008, specifically the sheer number of candidates, the internal party conflicts (within the Democratic Party), the thematic nature of the contest, the age issue, and the economic deficit. Only time will tell if the 2008 presidential contest will result in a Republican victory like the 1984 campaign did. Stay tuned.

Race and Religion

The religious aspect of election of 1928 was strikingly similar to that of 1960, however the Catholic-Protestant dynamic was even more intense. Irish-Catholic Alfred Smith versus Quaker-Protestant Herbert Hoover. Al Smith had to promote absolute separation of “church” and state in order not to isolate Protestant voters. “I have taken an oath of office nineteen times. Each time I swore to defend and maintain the Constitution of the United States of America. I have never known any conflicts between my official duties and my religious beliefs.” (225). Unlike Kennedy in 1960 however, this did little to help his cause among Protestant voters as he was crushed by Hoover in the national election. During the election preachers across the country claimed that if Smith won the Pope would be on his way to America to live in Washington. Some also claimed that “a vote for Smith is a vote for the Pope.” When Smith went to Oklahoma to give a speech on the scary prospects presented by religious intolerance he was greeted by the KKK. They badgered and threatened him despite, or perhaps because, of the subject of his speech. After the conclusion of his speech, KKK member John Roach Straton thrilled thousands with a speech titled “Al Smith and the Forces of Hell. (225) The enthusiastic and large crowd signifies the link between the population and religion.
80 years later race and religion still play a huge roll in the Presidental election. Much has been made about Obama's upbringing and of his now infamous preacher. If Obama does in fact win nod for the Democrats I would expect even more to be made of his religion than what has already transpired.
This link shows video of many news casts and their opinions on this issue.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=obama+religion&hl=en&sitesearch=
Like Smith, Obama has had to attempt to neutralize the issue at every possible turn, which for him has included being open and confident about both race and religion.

Party Changes

Both the Democratic and Republican Parties of today are different than they were in the past. In the early years, the Grand Old Party was not conservative in the sense we know today. The northern Republican abolitionists wanted progressive changes and supported the social programs of the Reconstruction. According to an article published by The Claremont Institute, titled “Not Your Father’s Republican Party,” the party changed somewhat over the next several years, but basically “remained in a general way the party of activist government and progressive causes at least through the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt.” During this time period, and during the period of the New Deal, the Democratic Party had more conservative elements than the Republican Party.
After World-War II the term “conservative” began to be associated with the Republican Party, at first in the intellectual sense of a party that would hold on to traditional lifestyle and libertarian political principles. This new conservatism would be a party of limited government and free markets. There would be federalism and local control, and support for entrepreneurs and business.
During the 1950’s the “Dixi-crats” of the South, who were opposed to the civil rights movement, joined the Republican Party. The Democratic Party became the party which wanted change and social progressive policies. They wanted government involvement in addressing fairness in business, employment, housing, school, etc.
In the 1970’s the Republican Party embraced religious and tax reform movements. Between 1976 and 1988, there was a political realignment, in which evangelicals and fundamentalists moved to the Republican Party. They did more than vote for Republican candidates; they became heavily involved in political activity. The present-day Republican Party courts the religious vote, wants traditional family values to be part of public policy, and favors big business. According to the Claremont article: “Today, the Republican Party is America’s “nationalist” party, in opposition to an increasingly “provincial” Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party of today is struggling with a balance between being liberal and keeping their moderate support. The party favors progressive reforms, and more individual and states rights.

"It's the Economy Stupid..."

As gas prices continue to rise and more and more people begin to cry at the pumps, the economy is becoming one of the most important issues in the 2008 according to CNN.com. As you may have heard by now the economy seems to have slipped into a slight recession by which the government has tried to fight with fiscal policy through tax rebates and monetary policy through the Federal Reserve’s aggressive rate cuts. More and more Americans are beginning to take notice of the current housing market crisis and the deficiencies in the financial sectors.
Also, as Americans begin to pay much more at the pumps than they ever have, the fear of inflation is also having a significant effect on the way people are looking at candidates. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, 49% of those polled said that the economy was their number one issue for their vote for President. This topped the war in Iraq by a 30% margin. Only 19% of those polled said that the war in Iraq was their top issue in the 2008 Presidential race. Which economic problems are such a concern for the upcoming race for President? Of those polled, 47% said that inflation was their top choice, 19% said the housing market crisis, 13% said taxes, another 13% said unemployment, and lastly, 5 percent said the stock market.
This is especially interesting because it seems as if people are moving away from the war in Iraq as their number one issue. We know that as people more threatened they become more conservative, and as threat fades that “rally round the flag” effect tends to fade. We also know that economy issues are a Democratic specialty in a sense. It seems as if, just like in the Bush vs. Clinton election of 1992, the economy issues are going to overshadow the war in the Middle East for a second time here in the United States in 2008.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/02/issue.poll/index.html

Hillary...The Movie?!

Hillary on the big screen...youve GOT the be joking! Is his a presidential race or a Hollywood showdown? Last time I checked these candidates were running for President of the United States, not in contest for an Oscar.

But yes....Hillary Clinton will be on the big screen in Hillary the Movie. The movie has just ben completed and is a documentary style movie mixed with a personal memoir. It will chronicle the ins and outs of the Clinton marriage, both Bill and Hillary's political careers, their children and their personal lives. All the dirt you wanted to know about the Clinton family will be released to the public in full technicolor dream screen. Directed by Alan Peterson, and poduced by a long line of Hollywood producers, the movie is a top notch production.

The al-star cast includes people such as Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Gerth, Buzz Patterson, Michael Barone, Billy Dale, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Tony Blankley, Dick Armey, Bay Buchanan, Joe Connor, Mark Levin, Frank Gaffney, Peter Paul, Gary Aldrich, Dan Burton, John Mica, Michael Medved, Kathleen Willey, Kate O’Beirne, Larry Kudlow and more! With 40 plus interviews from people that know the Clintons best, it should be quite the movie.

It was released for the first time on the big screen on January 14th in Washington DC, and locations have been spreading until the present. More dates of release are to come as the months so on. The most recent release date was April 21st, in Brooklyn, Ohio. BUT...if you can't make it to theatres, have no fear! You can order Hillary the Movie from the website for a meer $23.95 by credit card. Two weeks later you will have this masterpiece for your personal DVD collection...who knows, in 80 years it could be a classic. Or not? (If you can't wait those 2 weeks to see someHillary, there are trailers online at the movie website to give you a fix until the day that florious package comes!)

Press has been very mized about the movie, from priase saying that the new movie "exposes the Clintons" and also crituqes saying that it is "misleading trash,""down and dirty," and that "Hillary has no conscience." Watch the movie and decide for yourself...should Hillary Clinton take up acting if she loses the 2008 election or should she just stick the to Senate?

Religion Politics

The news lately about this election has not really been about the close race, or the fact that in less than a week a toss up state in Indiana will have their turn to vote in the race for the Democratic nomination, but rather it has been about religion. The whole controversy is over comments made by Obama's (now former and estranged) pastor, Jeremiah Wright. These comments were anti-American comments and some say that Obama did not to a well enough job in repudiating these comments. However, just yesterday, Obama basically split with Wright, saying he was shocked and appalled at his comments from earlier in the week. Overall, this may hurt Obama, but as many of times before, big issues one day are yesterday's news the next day. With this controversy with the Pastor Wright in the news today, I bet a lot of people have forgotten the whole deal with the rumor that Obama is actually a Muslim.

All of this hoop la around the religion controversy reminds me of the 1976 election with Jimmy Carter. In that campaign, Carter, who is a devout Southern Baptist from Georgia, did an interview with Playboy Magazine about religion. In it, Carter said that any man who looks and lusts for another woman, even in their own mind, is committing adultery, and that he was guilty of that sin. He then said that he was forgiven by Christ. The headlines in the news in the next few days read that "Carter Sinned" and "Carter Lusts For Other Women." This hurt his poll numbers and his standing among the public (sort of like what is happening to Obama right now), however Carter ended up winning the election of 1976 regardless.

Sources from:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/30/ED2010DQND.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01obama.html?ref=us

Electoral Tit-for-Tat

We have all heard it before, the Democratic Primary has been essentially going back and forth, or as Professor Cassino put it, tit-for-tat. It all started off in Iowa, with an Obama win. Then Clinton won in New Hampshire and Nevada. Not to be outdone, Obama won in South Carolina, and then a few weeks later, both candidates essentially split the super Tuesday contests and we are now here, for the most part tied, with Obama with what some put it as an advantage that is too far for Clinton to catch up to. Lately, after Clinton's win in the Pennsylvania primary, polling has showed that the race is tied nationwide among Democrats' choice for the Democratic nomination, and has been looking that way for about the past week. This back and forth and essentially tied up race for the Democratic nomination (thus the name tit-for-tat, or back and forth) is starting to wind down, and many Democrats hope that at the end of the contests in June, the nominee will be selected.

The next contests in this back and forth race is on May 6 (That is if you exclude the Guam caucuses that occur on May 3, but only have 4 delegates at stake). The two contests that occur on that date are in North Carolina and Indiana. With an electorate that would favor Obama in North Carolina (much the way the electorate in Pennsylvania favored Clinton) and since he is most likely to win that primary barring something totally unexpected, Indiana is the next big prize up for grabs in this tit-for-tat race. Many view this state as a toss-up, giving some momentum to the winner into the final few contests of the nominating season. Polls recently have shown this race to be tied, with no clear favorite. This entire campaign, we have seen that when one of the candidates wins, the other one makes a comeback a few days or weeks later in the next contests, thus tit-for-tat (ala Clinton's victory in New Hampshire and Nevada and then Obama's victory in South Carolina).

Now if in the last contests and if the super delegates don't decide fast enough, the Democrats could go to a dead locked convention in Denver in late August. That and all of this tit-for-tat in the primary season with each candidate going back and forth in the primaries reminds me of an election from not too long ago in 1976. In the 1976 race, GOP candidates Ronald Reagan and President Gerald Ford were going tit-for-tat in the primary season. When one won a contest, the other won would also win a contest. It was a close race, and neither was able to secure enough delegates to win the GOP nomination. The race went to the convention in the summer and a fight ensued between Reagan and Ford until President Ford finally prevailed and had enough delegates for the nomination. That finally ended the tit-for-tat primary season in 1976. If one candidate in this election for the Democrats isn't decided before the convention, we could possibly see something similar in what happened to the Republicans in 1976. We shall soon see if that tit-for-tat continues, if Clinton wins big in Indiana, or if it ends and Indiana goes heavily for Obama.

Information obtained from:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ot_20080429_6505.php
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/polls-clinton-obama-tied-in-indiana/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/clinton-obama-dead-even-for-fifth-straight-day/

Debates styles like Lincoln; differences since 2004 in parties

On Saturday April 26, 2008, Hilary Clinton announced to the nation that before the next major primary on May 6, she wanted a debate modeled off the historic debate in 1858.  The 1858 debate was between President Lincoln and Stephen Douglas which involved no moderator but just the two candidates challenging and answering each others questions.  Obama announced though the next day that he did not want to partake in another debate in Indiana or North Carolina and that he was not “ducking the debates” with his rival.  Maybe his reason for not wanting to debate again besides the fact that he had “21 already,” is the fact that since his debates his lead in the race went from 19 percent down to 7.  41 percent of Americans views have changed since Senator Obama was linked to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who’s sermons reached news a few weeks ago.
    

A great deal has changed since the election of 2004. Besides Bush’s approval rating plummeting to almost nothing, the Republican party seems to be losing voters. Of course with the war in Iraq, there are many that feel we don’t belong there and will vote democratic; yet, because of the marcopartisianship effect, there is still a threat of terror and September 11 in the backs of many minds which will lead to people staying Republican in times of crisis.  In 2004, Bush had a substantial amount of the Hispanic vote supporting him but that has changed since.  Now that there has been a wall built between Mexico and the US, with immigration controls tighter, Hispanics have left to go to the democratic side. Religious views are still the same with social issues somewhat different.  Obamas religion as well as McCain’s will definitely play a key role in the election process. It will be interesting to the see changes from 2004 to 2008 this year.

News article : http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/26/obama.debate/index.html#cnnSTCText

-Justin O'Connor

Racial Divide

Political parties throughout history have had a difficult time holding themselves together. This is especially true since 1940 when primary elections started to become more important in choosing the next party candidate. The election of 1940 was the first election to start using public opinion polls showing how much the country was favoring one candidate over another (Boller 252-254). It seems as though now the Democrats are really experiencing that problem known as the primary election. The biggest fear now is that race could potentially divide the party, even more than it appears it already has. As New York lawyer was quoted by MSNBC as saying of Clinton, “There’s no way for her to win this election except by destroying [Obama].” It seems as though this is the growing opinion as Clinton financial supporters switch sides to support Obama. Seventy-three of Clinton’s contributors who had made the maximum allowable contribution to her campaign, in March, donated the maximum amount allowable to Obama, clearly showing their change of support or distaste in the Clinton campaign.
As seen in previous elections, once supporters start changing horses, it does not take long until the rest of a candidate’s support dries up. This used to be the reason why the Iowa caucuses were so important. A candidate’s momentum was either built up or destroyed by the results of the caucus. However, these extended primaries have messed everything up, making it an all out brawl to the finish.
One of the major concerns is that this bloody battle will leave the democratic to bloody and bruised to fight the republicans in the election. That this primary will have put such a bad taste in certain party member’s mouths that they will not be willing to change their vote over to the other candidate.
There are a number of people who have a problem with the way the other member’s of the Democratic Party who keep bringing Obama’s pastor into the picture as an anti-American figure. As Reverend Jeremiah A Write Jr. was quoted as saying, "When something is taken like a sound bite for a political purpose and put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public, that's not a failure to communicate. Those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic or as the learned journalist from the New York Times called me, a 'wackadoodle.' “ These kinds of attacks will just further separate the party and make it harder for them to reunite against McCain in the upcoming months.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24320557/

Boller, Paul F. Jr. Presidential Campaigns. Oxford University Press Inc 1984.

What should I trust more, what I see or what I’m told?

In the 1968 Presidential Campaign voters were exposed to images from the Vietnam War courtesy of television. The Museum of Broadcast Communications website states that “Vietnam was the first "television war." The medium was in its infancy during the Korean conflict, its audience and technology still too limited to play a major role. The first "living-room war," as Michael Arlen called it, began in mid-1965, when Lyndon Johnson dispatched large numbers of U.S. combat troops, beginning what is still surely the biggest story television news has ever covered”(Vietnam on Television). American Voters were for the first time able to rely on images of the war, rather than the words of Johnson’s administration. During the January 1968 State of the Union, Lyndon Johnson stated to the American people that there was much progress in Vietnam, but with the images the people were shown nightly on the news, Johnson’s assessment was hard to believe. “Since I reported to you last January:
--Three elections have been held in Vietnam--in the midst of war and under the constant threat of violence.--A President, a Vice President, a House and Senate, and village officials have been chosen by popular, contested ballot.--The enemy has been defeated in battle after battle.--The number of South Vietnamese living in areas under Government protection tonight has grown by more than a million since January of last year” (LBJ Library and Museum Website). http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/680117.asp
This State of the Union was a statement to the American people that the war was going well, even though the media and television reports were telling them a drastically different story. Ultimately the unpopular images of the war outweighed Johnson’s positive portrayed and he decided to seek peaceful alternatives and not run for another presidential term. This conflict between media images and presidential messages (or in the case of John McCain presidential hopefuls) is something fairly common. In the 2008 election John McCain has been portrayed as having positive views on the War in Iraq, when the television and media reports have been mostly negative. A CBS news report states that John McCain's upbeat view of the war in Iraq isn't shared by many Americans, according to a CBS News poll. McCain's negative ratings have risen this year, and a sizeable number of Americans believe he's painted too rosy a picture of the situation in Iraq”(CBS.Com). As with the Vietnam War, those who view the Iraq War on television have a more pessimistic view of the situation “The poll listed on the CBS website also found that two-thirds of Americans continue to believe things are going badly in Iraq, about the same number as a month ago but more negative than one year ago. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/11/opinion/polls/main2670978.shtml. Some political analyst belive that if McCain does not alter his views on the war in Iraq, he could face the same political fate as Lyndon Johnson, only time will tell

The impact of the 1912 Primaries

In the primary elections of 1912 Teddy Roosevelt was running against William Taft in the first primaries. Former President Roosevelt won in landslide victories in 9 out of the 12 primaries. However, when the convention met to decide on whom the candidate would be TR had the nomination pulled out from under him and given to William Taft. The online Biography of TR boldly states that due to the 1912 primaries not deciding the winner, "never again would any political party decline to nominate the clear winner of the presidential primaries." (http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/bullmoose.htm)

That statement could be tested this year as the democratic primaries come to a close. Barack Obama heads towards the home stretch as the Teddy Roosevelt, with the most states won, the most votes overall, and the most pledged delegates. As the race is prolonged and dragged on by the hopes of Hillary Clinton the end could become even more like the 1912. Clinton is calling for Superdelegates, and even pledged delegates if they would be so kind, to back her despite the facts. She bases her case off of random facts such as she has won more larger states and has done better in the traditionally strong democratic voter categories.

Knowing the results of declining to follow the voice of the American people rang out loud and clear in 1912 when TR's third party the Bull Moose Party took second over William Taft and the Republican party, the Democratic National Party should tread lightly in the months to come. The Superdelegates have the ability to step in and end this pointless bickering. At any point the Superdelegates can step in and pledge their support to the clear victor of the people, but they have remained silent and allowed the party to be torn apart. What good is the past if you aren't going to learn from it?


Andrew Stoltzfus

Verified Trust.

When President Regan spoke of “trust, but verified” he meant the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. The President could just as easily have been referencing the relationship between libertarians and Republicans. Some libertarians in the GOP feel very often like President Eisenhower, when in the run up to the 1952 presidential campaign, he was forced to align himself with Senator William Jenner, and after having to embrace him during a campaign event, remarked afterward to a confidant: “I felt dirty from the touch of the man” (Boller 52).

There has existed a “Cold War” of sorts between libertarians and Republicans through the decades. At times, these icy relations have thawed in the name of political expediency. The inception of the RLC, or, The Republican Liberty Caucus, has helped to bridge some of the more common divides between the philosophy of liberty and the Republican ideology.

This is not to say that the extremely uneasy alliance hasn’t had its drawbacks and stumbles. One suspects often times that libertarians and Republicans agree on core principles more often than not. Paradoxically, one realizes members of both respective governing philosophies are more often than not very reticent to concede this reality. Republicans often declare that they do not “need” libertarians to advance their political agenda. Libertarians sometimes declare that the Republicans do not reflect their values and are poorly conceived impersonators of true libertarian ideals.

In the Republican glory days of the 1990’s and through the early part of the twenty-first century, when they firmly controlled both chambers of Congress, Republicans might have been right. Those were heady times for the Republican Party. It seemed to Americans, and analysts alike, that the American people were secure in the cradling arms of Republican governance for the foreseeable future. There was no divided government for the Republicans to be concerned about. They had the House, the Senate, and even The White House in 2000.

Dawn has broken over a very different Republican Party. The gains achieved since the 1990’s were for all intensive purposes washed away by the Democrat Tsunami of 2006. Many liberty-minded and moderate individuals abandoned the Republican Party when the party of supposed limited government and fiscal responsibility began increasing the government’s size and scope. The Republican Party oversaw the greatest expansion of government since The Great Society (Goldberg). Add to this stormy mix an immigration policy that made liberty-minded individuals uncomfortable, and many saw a political alliance shattered by irreconcilable differences.

Turning to the minor Libertarian Party, the politically homeless former GOP members were confronted by an unacceptably radical utopian platform and a mandatory pledge that disavowed the use of force for political or social gain, in any circumstance. In a political climate such as the one America finds herself in now, where approval ratings are remarkably low for both Major Parties, the 2008 presidential election cycle would seemed to have been the opportunity that Libertarians should have seized upon to raise the prominence of the nation’s third largest political party, and welcome a disheartened electorate. The dualopoly of the U.S. electoral system dooms any minor party however, and the ‘party of principle’ is no exception. Thirty-five plus years of electoral drought will almost certainly continue on for the foreseeable future.

During the early appearances of his 1952 presidential bid, General Eisenhower attempted to strike a moderate tone. According to Paul F. Boller, Jr. in Presidential Campaigns: “He took the ‘middle road’ and, although attacking centralized powers in Washington, accepted the social gains of the Roosevelt era as ‘solid floors’ on which private enterprise could build a better life for people.”

By the Fall of that same year, however, General Eisenhower, a warrior by trade, was forced to make peace with the more right-wing elements of the GOP. Eisenhower met with Senators Taft (R-Ohio), Jenner (R-Indiana) and McCarthy (R-Wisconsin). Eisenhower remained privately embarrassed by these individuals and the right wing they represented of the Party, and perceived them as unprincipled and smear artists (Boller 283). Eisenhower’s embarrassment over those he had politically aligned himself with only increased when Senator McCarthy declared General George C. Marshall “a front man for traitors” (Boller 283). Eisenhower was close friends with General Marshall for thirty-five years, and was planning to defend his friend in a speech, when he quashed the particular portion of his speech defending Marshall, at the behest of Republican leaders.

The Republican Party needs libertarians more now than ever, and perhaps libertarians need the Republican Party if they are ever to find a successful vehicle in which to advance their ideals. Republicans can no longer afford to take Independents for granted, nor dismiss libertarians and their strongly held beliefs. In his piece “Libertarians and the Republican Party: Irreconcilable Differences, attorney Glenn Greenwald, wrote:

There are no more vibrant libertarian components left of the Bush movement. Libertarians (in the small "l" sense of that word) have either abandoned the Bush-led Republicans based on the recognition -- catalyzed by the Schiavo travesty -- that there are no movements more antithetical to a restrained government than an unchecked Republican Party in its current composition. Or, like Reynolds, they have relinquished their libertarian impulses and beliefs completely as the price for being embraced as a full-fledged, unfailingly loyal member of the Bush-led Republican Party.

In his article Keeping Libertarians Inside The Tent, which appeared in The National Review, constitutional attorney Randy Barnett wrote of political compromise between Republicans and libertarians:

Stop making snide gratuitous remarks about libertarians. Nothing turns off libertarians more than the sort of wholly gratuitous snide remarks about libertarians in conservative publications. By gratuitous I mean they show up even in articles about policies with which libertarians and conservatives agree. The more libertarians feel unwelcome in the coalition that is the Republican party, the more they will vote Libertarian…
[However], The Republican coalition is, after all, a coalition and libertarians if they are inside the tent cannot be expected to call all the shots.



If both chambers of Congress are to be taken back by Republicans in the foreseeable future, they will need the full-fledged support of the libertarian movement within the Republican Party. Moreover, if the Republican Party wishes to hold the White House in the upcoming Presidential Election, the GOP can do so only by nurturing and cultivating its alliance with libertarians. Senator McCain might be just the right maverick standard bearer to accomplish this task, or he might not.

There are some common ideals that libertarians and Republicans could agree upon. However, if political compromise is to be possible, one, or both sides, cannot feel like President Eisenhower in the 1952 presidential election. That is to say, being able to compromise politically without surrendering their principles in the process. Only in this way, may it be possible for libertarians and the GOP to build a foundation from which a better, stronger and more trustful relationship is forged.

By Ryan Christiano.

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-goldberg29jan29,1,7344906.column

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4071

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/libertarians-and-republican-party.html

Boller, Paul F. Jr. Presidential Campaigns. Oxford University Press Inc 1984.

April showers bring May flowers. . .And as a summertime treat, maybe some tax relief

While the Democratic Party is busy battling it out for the nomination, Republican nominee is busy making plans on how to revive this downturned economy. How does he plan to do it? Reduce federal spending and cut taxes.
McCain plans to remove the federal tax on gasoline for the summer months, which currently sits at about 18.4 cents a gallon. It may not seem like much, but the blow that it would deal to the government’s budget would be in the billions. To help compensate for this cut in federal income, McCain would freeze expansion of federal offices and agencies. This seems rather unusual, that a Republican candidate would be against expansion of federal agencies when the party keeps promoting homeland security as one of their number one issues.
This however, is a clever trick. Promoting yourself as a Republican who will defend the security of the homeland and then at the same time pitch yourself as someone who will cut federal spending. McCain also said that he would cut back on congressionally pork-barrel spending saving an estimated 100 billion dollars.
I’m not too sure how I feel about cutting back on federal agency expansions, but cheaper gas. . .that does have a nice ring to it.

The Tradition of Politics

‘There’s been a lot of discussion over the last several days about how this campaign gets so negative, how we get distracted, how we exploit divisions,” Mr. Obama told voters in Reading on Sunday afternoon’ (Seeyle, Zeleny). Reports from The New York Times portrays Senator Obama as developing a more rigid tone and firing back at the Senator Clinton with the race for the democratic nomination getting close. According to The New York Times, Mr. Obama goes on record calling Mrs. Clinton; a compromised Washington Insider wherein she fires back by describing “his message of hope had given way to old-style politics and asked Democrats to take a harder look at him”
Not only are we trading negative remarks, the Election of 2008 also seems to be racking up quite a heavy spending with an estimated 20 million has the figure of expense come next Tuesday. The New York Times reports, “Mr. Obama will have spent more than $9 million on television and Mrs. Clinton will have spent almost $4 million” (Seeyle, Zeleny). There no doubt that campaigning is costly but the trail has also attracted many new and fairly young voters with “the field operations of both campaigns adding 327,000 Democrats to the voter rolls, many of them 18 to 34 years old” (Seeyle, Zeleny).
From our discussion of Susan Dunn’s historical work on the political career of Thomas Jefferson we can bear witness to similar tactics being used today that were branded by the old party machines.

Survival of the Fittest

It is seems traditional to attack your opponent as many times as possible on the campaign trail which some might deem a winning strategy. We have recognized these bitter entanglements through readings that outline the constant battle between the Federalists and Republicans for the most revered position of our land. Though candidates build their platforms around the issues they will represent, a lot of time is also spent tearing down the character of the opposing team. The federalists were accused of being too elitist while the Republicans were deemed unfit because they did not possess the aristeia that was trademark for the federalists.
It is this scramble to secure the nomination that have candidates bringing out their “attack dog” stance, feeding off any mishaps experienced by their opponents and using it rip them a part. Lately Pennsylvania has been the focus of the Election of 2008 due to their upcoming primaries, which has Senator Clinton and Senator Obama embroiled in a bitter battle of word confusion. On one hand you have Senator Clinton accusing Senator Obama of being elitist and on the other Senator Obama resurrects prior remarks of Senator Clinton which may imply the same charge. Senator Obama counteracts charges of him being closely identifiable with those of the upper echelon by referring to Senator Clinton’s 1992 remarks wherein she goes on record saying ‘“what do you expect, should I be at home baking cookies”’ ( Nagourney, Zeleny)? The game continues until the primaries helps us to decide who will seal the nomination, until then we should sit back and enjoy the stone faces, smirks and teeth clenching that will be found on many televised debates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17debate.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17watch.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html